SkinsHokieFan Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 What threat did the Redskins propose to Mara in order for him to want to take it out on the Redskins?The Giants were coming off of their second Superbowl in five years. What exactly was he scared of? The best FA class in NFL history+ The Redskins with nearly 40 M in cap space+ a potential franchise QB pick. He wanted the Redskins to lose DRAFT PICKS as well. Why? Its obvious, to harm a division rival whose moves are finally paying off and will make it tougher for his team to compete. Why weren't the Bucs punished? Why didn't the Saints or Raiders lose cap space? What about the Bears and the Peppers deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 The Saints and Raiders did lose cap space - specifically they were not allowed to gain the extra cap space everyone else did by the league divying up the cap space they took from the redskins/cowboys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiGdiCeBuDdHa Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 The best FA class in NFL history+ The Redskins with nearly 40 M in cap space+ a potential franchise QB pick.He wanted the Redskins to lose DRAFT PICKS as well. Why? Its obvious, to harm a division rival whose moves are finally paying off and will make it tougher for his team to compete. Why weren't the Bucs punished? Why didn't the Saints or Raiders lose cap space? What about the Bears and the Peppers deal? That's nice in theory, but doesn't that sum up the Redskins over the past decade? Also, you say Mara "wanted" them to lose draft picks as well. If he was in charge of levying the punishment, couldn't he have just taken them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 What came first? The chicken or the egg? Do two wrongs make a right? Where's your 'two?' Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiGdiCeBuDdHa Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Where's your 'two?'Hail. 1. The Redskins dumping years worth of crappy contracts using a loophole, despite other teams not taking advantage yet knowing of the loophole. 2. The league penalizing them for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiGdiCeBuDdHa Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 What does the last decaade have to do with Mara cheating?Why weren't the Bucs/Raiders/Saints/Bears sanctioned? I feel like you're being obtuse. Not sure I want to engage anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Where's your 'two?'Hail. He's already layed it out, a few times now. So have I. Why are you asking for it again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 That's nice in theory, but doesn't that sum up the Redskins over the past decade?Also, you say Mara "wanted" them to lose draft picks as well. If he was in charge of levying the punishment, couldn't he have just taken them? What does the last decaade have to do with Mara cheating? Why weren't the Bucs/Raiders/Saints/Bears sanctioned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 He's already layed it out, a few times now. So have I.Why are you asking for it again? You've offered up nothing more than a personal opinion. Bottom line: No rules were broken. You keep being asked for something of substance to counter that, because as yet you haven't. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 What came first? The chicken or the egg? Do two wrongs make a right? Don't know, but three rights makes a left. What came first was the CBA, a legal contract which included terms negotiated, supposedly in good faith. The admitted collusion is a breach of faith for which two teams are being punished for not taking part. To my mind, there is some irony in an owner who had no part in the negotiation of the CBA in question being the most severely punished for living up to the negotiated contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 1. The Redskins dumping year's worth of crappy contracts using a loophole, despite other teams not taking advantage yet knowing of the loophole.2. The league penalizing them for it. Again, where's your two? The league penalising a legal move is one wrong. A team acting within the rules, and having what they did ratified by the league isn't another. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 1. The Redskins dumping year's worth of crappy contracts using a loophole, despite other teams not taking advantage yet knowing of the loophole.2. The league penalizing them for it. 1. It wasn't a loophole it was the terms of the CBA. 2. Other teams deciding together not to take advantage was collusion and they broke the law. If this ever see's a judge the NFL will be hurting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiGdiCeBuDdHa Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Again, where's your two?The league penalising a legal move is one wrong. A team acting within the rules, and having what they did ratified by the league isn't another. Hail. You're being obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slaga Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 1. The Redskins dumping year's worth of crappy contracts using a loophole, despite other teams not taking advantage yet knowing of the loophole.2. The league penalizing them for it. The problem is the loophole was not by accident. The loophole was something that the NFLPA had added to the previous CBA to get the owners to negotiate a new CBA in good faith. The loophole was completely legitimate. It was something that all 32 team owners and the NFLPA agreed to. A few owners forcing the rest of the owners to abide by something above and beyond the NFL Bylaws and the CBA is not legitimate and quite frankly, illegal. So you still only have 1 wrong and that is #2 on your list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 1. The Redskins dumping years worth of crappy contracts using a loophole, despite other teams not taking advantage yet knowing of the loophole.2. The league penalizing them for it. Do you understand what a "loophole" is? "a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded" so to be a loophole, there must also be a statute/contract or obligation in the first place. You and others have been asked ad nauseum...what is that statute/contract/obligation in this case? If you cannot answer with precision, there is no "loophole" and therefor no basis for punishment. Taken another way, even if there was a "loophole" I am not aware of any legal case where capitalizing on a loophole is illegal nor punishable. Are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 You've offered up nothing more than a personal opinion. Bottom line: No rules were broken. You keep being asked for something of substance to counter that, because as yet you haven't. Hail. Oh it's been provided. By Me, by others, even Jumbo provided a bit of it. You just don't like it and refuse to give it any credit Not liking and agreeing with something doesn't put into question its existence. It's all through the thread, you're just choosing to ignore it and ask for more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 You're being obtuse. And you aren't? Give us something, ANYTHING; to substantiate the NFL penalising a team that worked within the rules the NFL not only laid down, but acknowledged when they ratified the contracts. And a spurious 'we went against the spirit of the cap after the League verbally warned, without having anything legal in black and white, that there'd be consequences' doesn't cut it. Even less so with the illegal collusion behind that. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Oh it's been provided. By Me, by others, even Jumbo provided a bit of it.You just don't like it and refuse to give it any credit Not liking and agreeing with something doesn't put into question its existence. It's all through the thread, you're just choosing to ignore it and ask for more. I've read every single post in the thread. Please tell me the specific post number so I can see where you reference the broken rule. (this is the 4th time I've asked you what rule with no answer yet btw) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiGdiCeBuDdHa Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 And you aren't?Give us something, ANYTHING; to substantiate the NFL penalising a team that worked within the rules the NFL not only laid down, but acknowledged when they ratified the contracts. And a spurious 'we went against the spirit of the cap after the League verbally warned, without having anything legal in black and white, that there'd be consequences' doesn't cut it. Even less so with the illegal collusion behind that. Hail. No, I'm not. Because I AGREE with you that it was wrong to penalize the Redskins. That was one of the two wrongs of my "two wrongs don't make a right" post. However, what I'm saying, is that the Redskins did something wrong on their end, too, a viewpoint that you are absolutely unwilling to give any creedance to. IMO, that makes you obtuse. Because if the Redskins didn't do what they did in the first place, there would be no penalty. Failing to ignore that FACT is obtuse. You act as if John Mara conjured all of this up out of thin air because he was somehow scared or intimidated by the Redskins moves. That there was no basis whatsoever, and that he just pulled this "crime" out of thin air on a whim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiGdiCeBuDdHa Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I'm done dude. You win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 No, I'm not. Because I AGREE with you that it was wrong to penalize the Redskins. That was one of the two wrongs of my "two wrongs don't make a right" post.However, what I'm saying, is that the Redskins did something wrong on their end, too, a viewpoint that you are absolutely unwilling to give any creedance to. IMO, that makes you obtuse. Because if the Redskins didn't do what they did in the first place, there would be no penalty. Failing to ignore that FACT is obtuse. So, what was done wrong? From the NFL http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/10/02/leagues-latest-collusion-brief-is-a-two-edged-sword/ It’s a strong presentation of facts and law. But, as the league seems to do from time to time, it brief goes one step too far, at page 13: “There were no rules or agreements broken by the Redskins, the Cowboys, or any other Club with respect to Player Contracts executed in the 2010 League Year.”That assertion is backed by a sworn affidavit from Peter Ruocco, senior V.P. of labor relations for the NFL Management Council, who says at paragraph 12 that “[n]o rules or agreements were broken” by the Redskins or Cowboys, even though total salary cap penalties of $46 million were imposed against the two teams. At paragraph 3 of the affidavit, Ruocco denies that he told NFLPA general counsel Tom DePaso in March 2012 “that the League believed that the Redskins and Cowboys had secured an unfair advantage over Clubs that committed lesser amounts to players in 2010 than did those Clubs.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 No, I'm not. Because I AGREE with you that it was wrong to penalize the Redskins. That was one of the two wrongs of my "two wrongs don't make a right" post.However, what I'm saying, is that the Redskins did something wrong on their end, too, a viewpoint that you are absolutely unwilling to give any creedance to. IMO, that makes you obtuse. Because if the Redskins didn't do what they did in the first place, there would be no penalty. Failing to ignore that FACT is obtuse. Head. Wall. Bang. Failing to accept that a team that legally did no wrong, isn't, ya' know, IN the wrong; isn't only being obtuse; it's being as arrogantly ignorant as you possibly can be. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slaga Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 However, what I'm saying, is that the Redskins did something wrong on their end, too, a viewpoint that you are absolutely unwilling to give any creedance to. What exactly did the Redskins do wrong on their end? Even the NFL says they did no wrong concerning the contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I've read every single post in the thread. Please tell me the specific post number so I can see where you reference the broken rule.(this is the 4th time I've asked you what rule with no answer yet btw) Post 56 is one of them. I suggest you revisit your reading lessons. In post 50 GHH clearly understands my position, as I had said it before then in post 46. As I've said, multiple times, all the answers, support, links, etc you guys are asking for have already been posted. You're just refuse to agree with it or acknowledge it; that doesn't make it not exist. edit: i'm sure there are more. feel free to look for them yourself if you need to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 None of the above is what SS has repeatedly asked you for tshile. Your just repeatedly offering an opinion and using that as fact in some deluded idea that your view of 'context' justifies the Redskins and Cowboys being in the wrong, regardless of the punishment you acknowledge is unfair. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.